Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV38060, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 20STCV38060    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Punitive Damages and Defendants’ Profits and Financial Condition at Trial

Moving Party:  Defendants Chloe’s Apartments, LLC, Apartment Management Group, LLC, Eloise C. Williams, and Gaylord Williams

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Mei Ling Harper

The Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED.

Issues of punitive damages and Defendants’ financial conditions are BIFURCATED from the initial trial in this matter until such time that the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding damages and finds Defendant(s) guilty of malice, oppression, and/or fraud.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

        The Court is not sure why Defendant filed a separate motion to bifurcate.  A simple Motion in Limine or oral motion to bifurcate would have been sufficient, particularly because Defendant argues that section 3295(d) is mandatory.

        Further, Defendant argues that “The ‘evidence’ to which this statute refers is a showing of clear and convincing evidence that Chariot was not only negligent, but that it breached a duty in a malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent manner.”  (Motion, p. 5:8-10.)  There is no “Chariot” who is a Defendant in this case; the Court is not sure if this is simply a “cut-and-paste” error that was imported from another case by defense counsel.

BACKGROUND:

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff Mei Ling Harper filed her Complaint against Chloe’s Apartments, LLC, Apartment Management Group, LLC, Adrian Malin, and Dan Zuckerman on various causes of action related to habitability issues with Plaintiff’s apartment.

On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff amended her Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with Williams Trust.

On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff amended her Complaint to correctly designate Defendant Williams Trust as Eloise C. Williams.

On February 18, 2021, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Defendants Adrian Malin and Dan Zuckerman from the Complaint.

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint.

On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint.

On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff amended her Complaint to substitute Doe 3 with Gaylord Williams.

On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint.

On May 24, 2022, Defendants Chloe’s Apartments, LLC and Apartment Management Group, LLC filed their Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

On August 19, 2022, Defendants Eloise C. Williams and Gaylord Williams filed their Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

On May 3, 2023, Defendants Chloe’s Apartments, LLC and Apartment Management Group, LLC filed their Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Punitive Damages and Defendants’ Profits and Financial Condition at Trial (“Motion to Bifurcate”).

On May 3, 2023, Defendants Eloise C. Williams and Gaylord Williams filed their Joinder to the Motion to Bifurcate.

On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Opposition.

No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)¿ 

¿ 

“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)¿ 

¿ 

“The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. . . .” (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).)¿ 

II.        Discussion

Defendants request that the Court bifurcate the issue of punitive damages and preclude evidence of, reference to, and/or questions concerning the profits and/or financial condition of Defendants. (Motion to Bifurcate. P. 6:2–5.)

        Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Bifurcate, arguing that there will be overlap in trying issues of liability of damages and Plaintiff must establish the financial condition of Defendants to prove various causes of action. (Opposition, pp. 2:8–9, 3:5–10, 3:21.)

Upon Defendants’ request, the Court is required to bifurcate the trial as to the evidence on Defendant’s financial condition and the issue of punitive damages. (Civ. Code, § 3295.)

III.     Conclusion

The Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED.

Issues of punitive damages and Defendants’ financial conditions are BIFURCATED from the initial trial in this matter until such time that the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding damages and finds Defendant(s) guilty of malice, oppression, and/or fraud.